The Anthropocene

[ding]

And, still, you have no evidence.

Incorrect. I already shared it with you. They don't allow dissenting opinions. That's not science. That's politics.

 

[MisterBeale]

You mean besides they squelch dissenting opinions in their reports so as to speak with one voice? That's not science. That's politics.

And, still, you have no evidence.

No, there is evidence this is about politics, and not science. It pops up, every now and again.

Nobel Prize winner who doesn't believe climate crisis has speech canceled

"I don't believe there is a climate crisis," Dr. John Clauser said during a speech at Quantum Korea 2023 in Seoul, South Korea.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Crick]

No, there is evidence this is about politics, and not science. It pops up, every now and again.

Nobel Prize winner who doesn't believe climate crisis has speech canceled

"I don't believe there is a climate crisis," Dr. John Clauser said during a speech at Quantum Korea 2023 in Seoul, South Korea.

www.newsweek.com

Ding's comment was in reference to the IPCC's assessment reports. He has no evidence that dissenting opinions are being repressed. The reports are intended to provide guidance to policymakers for which they try to put out as singular a description of the various processes as possible. The opinions of all the invited scientists are heard internally but all that input is winnowed into a singular product. So, not everyone gets heard. And, of course, some people put out bad science and their stuff will simply not make it into print, in the ARs or in any peer reviewed journal. That's not censorship, its the review process.

 

[MisterBeale]

Ding's comment was in reference to the IPCC's assessment reports. He has no evidence that dissenting opinions are being repressed. The reports are intended to provide guidance to policymakers for which they try to put out as singular a description of the various processes as possible. The opinions of all the invited scientists are heard internally but all that input is winnowed into a singular product. So, not everyone gets heard. And, of course, some people put out bad science and their stuff will simply not make it into print, in the ARs or in any peer reviewed journal. That's not censorship, its the review process.

Right here;

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations. Its job is to advance scientific knowledge about climate change caused by human activities.[1] The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the IPCC in 1988.. . ."

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A priori, in the mandate, they have already decided, that it IS caused, by the actions of global civilization. This is what is called, confirmation bias. . . IOW, it is political. They will only accept "science," and research, which supports their agenda.

They are admitting, by their mandate, that they will not consider, any other POV, evidence or scientific proof to the contrary, because it will not support the agenda of global governance which billions of dollars and an entire global (corrupt,) bureaucracy depends upon.

 

[Crick]

Right here;

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations. Its job is to advance scientific knowledge about climate change caused by human activities.[1] The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the IPCC in 1988.. . ."

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A priori, in the mandate, they have already decided, that it IS caused, by the actions of global civilization.

That is NOT the charter of the IPCC. It is someone's characterization of it. Here is the actual document establishing the IPCC and giving its purpose.

The rest of the document may be seen at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/02/UNGA43-53.pdf. It does NOT blame humans for global warming. However, research was already indicating that was the case

This is what is called, confirmation bias. . . IOW, it is political.

What is political here is your opinion.

They will only accept "science," and research, which supports their agenda.

That's bullshit. Their job all along has been to assess the science, not establish what the science should show.

They are admitting, by their mandate, that they will not consider, any other POV, evidence or scientific proof to the contrary, because it will not support the agenda of global governance which billions of dollars and an entire global (corrupt,) bureaucracy depends upon.

Wrong.

 

[MisterBeale]

That is NOT the charter of the IPCC. It is someone's characterization of it. Here is the actual document establishing the IPCC and giving its purpose.
View attachment 813236
The rest of the document may be seen at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/02/UNGA43-53.pdf. It does NOT blame humans for global warming. However, research was already indicating that was the case

What is political here is your opinion.

That's bullshit. Their job all along has been to assess the science, not establish what the science should show.

Wrong.

United Nations Environment Programme​

"The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is responsible for coordinating responses to environmental issues within the United Nations system.[1][2] It was established by Maurice Strong, its first director, after the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in June 1972. Its mandate is to provide leadership, deliver science and develop solutions on a wide range of issues, including climate change,[3] the management of marine and terrestrial ecosystems, and green economic development.[4]. . ."

United Nations Environment Programme - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Meet Maurice Strong: Globalist, Oiligarch, "Environmentalist"​

Corbett • 02/01/2016 • 10 Comments

Meet Maurice Strong: Globalist, Oiligarch, “Environmentalist” | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

Maurice Strong is Dead | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

Maurice Strong is Dead​

QED.. ..

POLITICS.

Episode 282 – The IPCC Exposed | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

 

[Crick]

United Nations Environment Programme​

"The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is responsible for coordinating responses to environmental issues within the United Nations system.[1][2] It was established by Maurice Strong, its first director, after the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in June 1972. Its mandate is to provide leadership, deliver science and develop solutions on a wide range of issues, including climate change,[3] the management of marine and terrestrial ecosystems, and green economic development.[4]. . ."

United Nations Environment Programme - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Meet Maurice Strong: Globalist, Oiligarch, "Environmentalist"​

Corbett • 02/01/2016 • 10 Comments

Meet Maurice Strong: Globalist, Oiligarch, “Environmentalist” | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

Maurice Strong is Dead | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

Maurice Strong is Dead​

QED.. ..

POLITICS.

Episode 282 – The IPCC Exposed | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

Maurice Strong Derangement Syndrome?

 

[Crick]

This has been pointed out to all of you on several occasions, but the fact that my side of this debate has one theory as to why the world is getting warmer and your side has dozens, is not the way to convince anyone that you know what you're talking about.

 

[WinterBorn]

Hey Crock, did I just hear you claim that human activity equals a volcano erupting around the clock 24 hours a day? Do you realize there is an average of about 20 volcanoes erupting on the planet at any given time? And one major eruption can cool the planet in days. And you think human output equals 60X that?

If that were true fool, no one on Earth would ever see the Sun we would be so fogged out in a blanket of black human smog!

But the answer is simple: if you democrats believe that crap, your path is clear: all you need to do to save the world is JUMP INTO A VOLCANO. About 4 billion fewer of you idiots should be just about right to solve the pollution/overcrowding/climate/carbon problem for the rest of humanity, then the rest of us can lead normal lives again.

Yes, human output exceeds volcanic output of CO2 by 60x.

There are numerous scientific site that will explain it to you.

Enter the question in Google and see the light.

 

[fncceo]

Yes, human output exceeds volcanic output of CO2 by 60x

If only we could stop those darn humans from exhaling.

 

[WinterBorn]

Hey Crock, did I just hear you claim that human activity equals a volcano erupting around the clock 24 hours a day? Do you realize there is an average of about 20 volcanoes erupting on the planet at any given time? And one major eruption can cool the planet in days. And you think human output equals 60X that?

If that were true fool, no one on Earth would ever see the Sun we would be so fogged out in a blanket of black human smog!

But the answer is simple: if you democrats believe that crap, your path is clear: all you need to do to save the world is JUMP INTO A VOLCANO. About 4 billion fewer of you idiots should be just about right to solve the pollution/overcrowding/climate/carbon problem for the rest of humanity, then the rest of us can lead normal lives again.

Yes, a major volcanic eruption, especially from one of the Super Volcanoes, can cool the Earth.

But that is not from the CO2. It is from the massive ash clouds that will block the sun.

 

[westwall]

Yes, human output exceeds volcanic output of CO2 by 60x.

There are numerous scientific site that will explain it to you.

Enter the question in Google and see the light.

Who cares. CO2 is the basic building block of life on Earth. Only an anti science religious nutjob thinks it is a pollutant.

 

[abu afak]

No, there is evidence this is about politics, and not science. It pops up, every now and again.

Nobel Prize winner who doesn't believe climate crisis has speech canceled

"I don't believe there is a climate crisis," Dr. John Clauser said during a speech at Quantum Korea 2023 in Seoul, South Korea.

www.newsweek.com

​

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist​ 4 September 2023​ It’s a familiar story – the physicist who draws attention for declaring that climate scientists have got climate science all wrong. He (it’s always a ‘he’) was born before color television was invented, usually retired, perhaps having won a Nobel Prize, but with zero climate science research or expertise. William Happer. Ivar Giaever. Roger Cohen. Freeman Dyson. Steven Koonin. Robert Laughlin. The latest example from this mould is John F. Clauser. Although Clauser has never published any peer-reviewed climate science research, he has made several climate-related claims whose veracity we will examine below. Yes, humans are responsible for the increase in CO2​ In a July 2023 interview with the Epoch Times, Clauser claimed that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) “may or may not be made by human beings. It doesn't really matter where it comes from.” That's a bit like saying, "I don't know what atoms are made of, but it doesn't really matter. Let me tell you why particle physics is all wrong." In reality, several lines of evidence have proven the incontrovertible fact that the human combustion of fossil fuels – which today releases nearly 40 billion tons of CO2 per year – is entirely responsible for the 50% increase in Earth’s atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the Industrial Revolution. For example, there’s basic accounting: those 40 billion tons of CO2 have to go somewhere, and Earth’s natural sinks like the oceans and biosphere only absorb about half of those emissions. The other half ends up in the atmosphere, as explained in the Denial101x video below. And atmospheric carbon isotope ratio measurements also demonstrate that the CO2 increase is coming from ancient plant matter, a.k.a. fossil fuels. Anyone who understands even the most basic aspects of climate science should not question such a simple and thoroughly-established fact. No, clouds won’t save us​ The Epoch Times also wrote of Clauser: (abu afak): Epoch Times is the RW Conspiracy publication of Chinese nuts Falun Gong He argues that climate is primarily set by what he refers to as the "cloud cover thermostat," a self-regulating process whereby more clouds start to enshroud the Earth when the temperature is too high and vice-versa. Clouds play a complicated role in Earth’s climate because they both reflect sunlight, causing a cooling effect, and trap heat, causing a warming effect. Higher clouds tend to have a net warming effect while lower clouds tend to have a net cooling effect. How each type of cloud cover will change as the planet warms will determine whether they dampen or amplify global warming on the whole. So far, both observational evidence and climate modeling suggest that if anything, changes in cloud cover will act to slightly amplify global warming. Moreover, if cloud cover acted as Earth’s thermostat, then we wouldn’t have seen the large historical swings between ice ages and warm periods, as explained in the Denial101x video below. So, the available evidence strongly contradicts Clauser’s hypothesis. Climate change worsens extreme weather events​ In July 2023, Clauser gave a talk at the event Quantum Korea 2023 in which he claimed, “climate change does not cause extreme weather events.” In fact, climate change increases the intensity and/or frequency of many types of extreme weather. This is basic physics. An increased greenhouse effect traps more heat energy within Earth’s climate system. That increased heat raises temperatures, directly causing more extreme heat waves. It also increases evapotranspiration, amplifying droughts in drought-prone regions, and also wildfires. A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor (Clauser should read up on the Clausius–Clapeyron relation), which can amplify extreme precipitation and flooding in flood-prone regions. And warmer ocean waters fuel stronger hurricanes. The World Weather Attribution group has quantified the climate contribution to a number of extreme weather events, and these general relationships have been established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is a great scientific body​ In his Quantum Korea talk, Clauser also described the IPCC as “one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation.” In reality, the IPCC is one of the world’s greatest scientific bodies. It is composed of the world’s foremost climate scientists, who every 5 to 8 years devote tremendous amounts of time and effort to author reports summarizing the latest climate science research, without any remuneration whatsoever. The IPCC reports are in fact the world’s best source of accurate and valuable climate science information. Energy can come from clean sources​ In May of 2023, Clauser joined the board of directors of the climate-denying CO2 Coalition, at which time he stated: In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. Developing nations do need cost-effective energy sources to reduce the number of people living in poverty. But that energy needn’t come from fossil fuels. Africa, for example, has the largest solar power potential in the world, and also vast wind energy potential. As Andrea Willige has argued, the continent could leapfrog fossil fuel infrastructure in favor of decentralized power generation using renewable energy, just as it leapfrogged fixed-line telecommunication infrastructure to move straight to mass mobile phone use. In the process, it would avoid the detrimental health effects associated with fossil fuel air and water pollution, as well as the resulting climate pollution. Moreover, according to Lazard, the costs of clean technologies have fallen so far that solar energy plus storage is often cheaper today than building new fossil fuel power plants. Old climate denial​ Like so many of his old physicist colleagues before him, Clauser has repeated a number of long-debunked climate myths without providing any supporting evidence whatsoever. Until that changes, there is no reason to lend any credence to this brand of stale, reheated climate denial. Remember: whenever John F. Clauser and his statements related to climate change get bandied about, it is a prime example of using a fake expert on climate change. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist It’s a familiar story – the physicist who draws attention for declaring that climate scientists have got climate science all wrong. He (it’s always a ‘he’) was born before color television was invented, usually retired, perhaps having won a Nobel Prize, but with zero climate science research or... skepticalscience.com `

 

[ding]

Yes, human output exceeds volcanic output of CO2 by 60x.

There are numerous scientific site that will explain it to you.

Enter the question in Google and see the light.

"...The wide range of estimates of climate sensitivity is driven by uncertainties in climate feedbacks, including how water vapour, clouds, surface reflectivity and other factors will change as the Earth warms. Climate feedbacks are processes that may amplify (positive feedbacks) or diminish (negative feedbacks) the effect of warming from increased CO2 concentrations or other climate forcings – factors that initially drive changes in the climate.

Simple physics shows the world will warm by a bit more than 1C once CO2 doubles, if feedbacks are not taken into account..."

Explainer: How scientists estimate climate sensitivity

The sensitivity of the Earth’s climate to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration is a question that sits at the heart of climate science. Essentially, it dictates how much global temperatures will rise in response to human-caused CO2 emissions, but it is a question that does not yet have a...

www.carbonbrief.org

 

[ding]

Ding's comment was in reference to the IPCC's assessment reports. He has no evidence that dissenting opinions are being repressed. The reports are intended to provide guidance to policymakers for which they try to put out as singular a description of the various processes as possible. The opinions of all the invited scientists are heard internally but all that input is winnowed into a singular product. So, not everyone gets heard. And, of course, some people put out bad science and their stuff will simply not make it into print, in the ARs or in any peer reviewed journal. That's not censorship, its the review process.

You mean other than the fact they don't include dissenting opinions in their reports?

 

[toobfreak]

There are numerous scientific site that will explain it to you.

Yet amazingly, you fail to produce even one.

 

[toobfreak]

Yes, a major volcanic eruption, especially from one of the Super Volcanoes, can cool the Earth.

Pul-eeeze. Any volcanic eruption affects the climate, a major eruption causes significant global impact for a year or two. A super-volcano devastates the planet for decades, maybe centuries. Please stick with something you know a little bit about like badly moderating this forum.

 

[WinterBorn]

Pul-eeeze. Any volcanic eruption affects the climate, a major eruption causes significant global impact for a year or two. A super-volcano devastates the planet for decades, maybe centuries. Please stick with something you know a little bit about like badly moderating this forum.

I know plenty about the topic. And yes, what you said about the impact of a significant eruption is true. But it is not the CO2 that causes the devastation. It is the ash cloud blocking out the sun.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yet amazingly, you fail to produce even one.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were bright enough to use Google.

Does a Single Volcanic Eruption Release as Much CO2 As All of Humanity Has to Date?

Faulty science claims the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by volcanoes vastly outstrips the amount produced by human activity.

www.snopes.com

Fact check: No, a volcano in Greece did not produce more CO2 than all humans combined

The last volcanic eruption in Greece occurred in 1950, according to the Global Volcanism Program. Humans produce far more CO2 than volcanoes annually.

www.usatoday.com

Volcano Watch — Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity? | U.S. Geological Survey

People who are fortunate enough to live in or visit Hawai`i, or even those who have seen the right television documentaries know that the majestic presence of erupting volcanoes attests to their raw power.

www.usgs.gov

FAQ: What do volcanoes have to do with climate change?

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

Volcanoes do not produce more CO2 emissions than human activity

An eruption of Italy’s Mt. Etna, Europe's highest and most active volcano, does not produce “10,000 times” more carbon dioxide (CO2) than “mankind has in our entire time on earth”. Contrary to a years-old meme containing this false statement, the combined activity of all volcanoes on earth is...

www.reuters.com

Let me know if you need more.

 

[toobfreak]

I know plenty about the topic. And yes, what you said about the impact of a significant eruption is true. But it is not the CO2 that causes the devastation. It is the ash cloud blocking out the sun.

I never say one world about the CO2, but the CO2 is certainly a contributing factor, but not nearly the largest one with other aerosols and suspended compounds, plus like you said the ash and dust which trigger the most immediate impact by blocking out the light and heat from the Sun. But these are also among the first or fastest to dissipate, at least considering their immense volume, the fastest due to being solids which settle out of the air, then begins their longer-term secondary impact chemical reactions.

90% of the people here bloviate about things they really know nothing about. You should listen to Westwall here, he was a professional geologist and IMO knows more about the matter, Earth science and climate-related topics than probably anyone else here. West is like E. F. Hutton--- when he talks, I listen.